I’m sure the answer depends on a lot of variables. But generally how do rebels take over a government?
It seems easier back in monarchal times - the population believes in a king’s divine right and if someone stronger successfully challenges the king, then God must have changed her mind. Time to follow the new leader.
But in a modern country, here I am the big boss. The police enforce my laws. The army obeys my orders. A bunch of rebels storm my castle, hold a gun to my head and now the police/army say “Okay now the new guy’s boss!”
Does a successful coup need to gather a sufficient force to defeat the entire army of a nation? Seems incredible regardless of how small the nation is.
Is the success of a coup more a product of a general disliking of the current leader, giving everyone (including the police/army/population) an excuse to stop following the old jerk?
Have I just answered my own question?
ETA: what would it take for rebels in the a very strong country, (e.g. the U.S.) to successfully change regime (aside from campaigning and winning an election)?
Usually, a coup takes place in a country with a strong military that keeps the leader in power. If the military grows disenchanted with the ruler, some of them may plan to toss out the leader and promise better things to the military if they stay out of it.
Though coups are often in places where the populace dislikes the ruler, they only succeed if the military is willing to support them.
Normally no rebel gets to the “hold a gun to my head” stage without securing the cooperation of the police and/or army already.
Even in an absolute dictatorship, the leader doesn’t need majority appeal, but needs needs at least *some *popular support. At least enough to make their bodyguards feel that they’re better off not shooting the leader in the back at the first opportunity. Coups usually happen when a leader’s popular support falls below that required minimum.
The OP should be mindful that there is usually a difference between a revolution and a coup d’état. A coup generally means that elites within the government no longer support the leader, and oust him. So in your example, the very nature of a coup is that the military stops taking orders from the leader and tells him to take a hike. Many times this is accomplished with a minimum of violence.
A revolution is where the masses line up against government elites and compel them to step aside. This can be through violence, like in the American revolution or various civil wars, or by undermining the ability of the state to do anything, thereby undermining its legitimacy.
Both scenarios involve a change in government, but with differences in who is responsible and how they do it.
It helps if your brother is governor of a swing state & you’ve got some high court judges in our pocket. And the media prattle on about “a peaceful transfer of power”–because there isn’t actually blood in the streets.
There are also foreign backed coups. When Abrenz was overthrown in Guatemala it was a small group of military officers (actually, one) with the United State’s backing.
Keep in mind most people don’t work for the President. Even in the military, the soldiers get their orders from the officers and the officers get their orders from the generals. So all you need to do in most cases is get a few generals to switch their allegiance. Everyone else just keeps doing what they have been doing.
On the question regarding a coup d’etat in a country like the US (or the UK) it’s not so easy because the basis of a coup is to avoid resistance by replacing one ruling elite by another without disturbing the actual structures of power. This means that the civil servants, police, junior ranks of the army - the people that actually make the state work - have to accept the legitimacy of the new regime. In a new or unstable country this is easy, as the only generally accepted legitimacy is power - one bunch of thugs is as good as another.
In a stable, established democracy the only way of achieving legitimacy is through the ballot box in line with the constitution (cracks about swing states and judges not withstanding). Wake up tomorrow to hear that General Whatsit has assumed power and the response is at best passive resistance or more likely active opposition from other elements of the state. That’s not to say it’s impossible but you would need to be a bit more subtle to make it appear there was a legitimate reason why you were “temporarily” assuming power until order is restored.
Bridget Burke, you’ve been around long enough to know that political jabs are not permitted in General Questions. This is an official warning. Do not do this again.
Anyway, you may have heard of a “bloodless coup.” This is where someone warns the leader that the end is nigh, and he flees before they arrest/shoot/whatever him. Or, the coup leaders just convince him that fleeing the country is a better choice than trying to fight them.
I’m half-expecting this to happen in Cuba after Fidel Castro dies. Apparently, nobody respects his brother Raul, and are only obeying him because Fidel is still alive to tell them to do so. I figure, soon after Fidel’s funeral, the generals will point to a spot on the ground next to Fidel’s grave, and inform Raul that this will be his grave is he’s still around tomorrow.
Thailand’s recent coups have been largely bloodless. Maybe not the aftermath such as the red-shirt riots of a couple years ago or Black May 15 months after the 1991 coup, but the coups themselves have gone off pretty smoothly. The 2006 coup occurred while Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was out of the country. He was in New York for the General Assembly. However, reports are he took an unusual number of suitcases with him, many of them stuffed with some of his wealth, no doubt. Supposedly he was told there would be no need for a round-trip ticket.
Not sure how widely they telegraph these coups. I myself learned of it a couple hours before it was launched. Some Thai reporters told me. I went straight home that night.
